A Compassionately Transferred Fair-Price-Shop Licence Cannot Be Denied Renewal Solely Under the Ten-Year Limit.

A fair-price-shop licence originally issued to the petitioner’s father-in-law was transferred to her husband after the father-in-law’s death.

Following her husband’s death, the licence was transferred to the petitioner on 17 August 2016.

Although the licence was renewed for some time, the authorities later declined renewal without assigning reasons.

The petitioner submitted a representation seeking renewal on 5 October 2026 and sought a writ directing the authorities to renew the licence.

The State submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.

1. Whether the authorities could decline renewal of the petitioner’s fair-price-shop licence on the ground that a licensee could not obtain an extension beyond ten years, where the licence had been transferred to her on compassionate grounds.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions requiring consideration of her renewal representation and protection of the existing shop and her ability to distribute food grains pending that consideration.

The Court considered the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992, and the amendment to it as discussed in Nagaratna v. Commissioner and Others, WP No. 202885 of 2023, decided on 27 January 2025.

As described by the Court, Nagaratna held that the subsequent amendment applies prospectively to fresh licences and not to existing licences.

Applying that precedent, the Court stated that the petitioner’s licence, transferred to her on compassionate grounds, could not be denied renewal merely because a licensee could not seek an extension beyond ten years.

The petitioner’s licence had been transferred to her after her husband’s death, and she sought renewal by a written representation.

Relying on Nagaratna, the Court concluded that the authorities could not refuse renewal on the stated ten-year ground in light of the compassionate transfer.

It did not itself order renewal; instead, it required respondent No. 2 to consider the representation in accordance with law and in light of the precedent.

To preserve the position pending that decision, it directed that the petitioner’s card not be withdrawn or assigned to another fair-price shop and permitted her to continue distributing food grains.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 5 October 2026 within six weeks of receiving the order, keeping Nagaratna in view.

Until that consideration, the petitioner’s card was not to be withdrawn or assigned to another shop, and she was permitted to distribute food grains.

No order as to costs was made.